Point of Law: Expression “compelling reasons” in context of making an order for preventive detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent materials before detaining authority.

JUDGMENT :

(Alexander Thomas, J.)

1. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Criminal), seeking for issuance of writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari to challenge the order preventively detaining the detenue in this case under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) KAA(P) Act, 2007 are as follows:

“(i) call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(ii) Issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, Ijass, aged 31 years, S/o. Thangal Kunju, Thekathil Veettil, Perumanthazha, Varavila, Clapana Village, Kollam, the son of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Viyur before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

(iii) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Criminal).”

2. Heard Sri. M.H.Hanis, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A.Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The mother of the detenue in this case has moved this WP(Crl). The brief of the relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows:

4. The 3rd respondent District Police Chief (Sponsoring Authority) had initially submitted report dated 10.01.2022 and subsequently submitted an additional report dated 14.02.2022, recommending to the 2nd respondent District Collector cum District Magistrate (authorized detaining authority) that in view of the aspects mentioned in those reports, it is a fit case to enable the 2nd respondent to issue order under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, so as to detain the detenue to prevent him from committing further prejudicial activities as envisaged as per Section 2(a) of the above said Act. The case of the respondents is that taking into account those aspects mentioned in the Sponsoring Agency’s two reports, the 2nd respondent – authorized detaining authority has issued Ext.P1 order dated 21.03.2022, with the finding that the 2nd respondent is satisfied in view of the abovesaid materials that order should be issued to detain the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Act so as to prevent him from committing further prejudicial activities. Further, 2nd respondent has forthwith communicated Ext.P1 detention order to the 1st respondent State Government alongwith all requisite materials as envisaged in Section 3(3) of the Act. Further that, Ext.P1 detention order was executed with the formal arrest of the detenue on 30.03.2022. Thereafter, the 1st respondent State Government has issued order dated 08.04.2022 approving Ext.P1 detention order under Section 3(3) of the Act, which is within 12 days from the date of execution of the detention order, after excluding public holidays. Thereafter the 1st respondent State Government has referred the matter for the considered opinion of the 4th respondent Statutory Advisory Board as envisaged in Section 9 of the Act. The 4th respondent Advisory Board, after hearing the detenue, had given their report dated 19.05.2022, recommending to the 1st respondent State Government that in view of the aspects mentioned therein, there is sufficient grounds to preventively detain the detenue as per Ext.P1 order. Later, the 1st respondent State Government has issued GO(Rt) No.1505/2022/Home dated 30.05.2022, confirming Ext.P1 detention order as mandated in Section 10(4) of the Act. There are no serious disputes that the various statutory timelines prescribed as per the Act as in Section 3(3), which mandates forthwith communication to the State Government, 12 days time limit as per Section 3(3) for approval of the State Government, 3 weeks for placing the matter before the Advisory Board as per Section 9, 5 days time limit as per Section 7(2) for communicating the grounds of detention and relevant documents to the detenu, 9 weeks time limit as per